text:
Why are some US fighters' canopies tinted while others are not?
Ok, I'm sure we've all seen how some particular US fighters have tinted glass canopies (I'm not sure what you would refer to the glass as), while others do not. Looking at the currently in-service aircraft jet fighters, the newest kids on the block have very noticeable and iconic canopy tints. The F-22 Raptor has its iconic orange/yellowish tint that, depending on the viewing angle, can sometimes look golden. The F-35 Lightning II has been seen sporting several different colored tints such as a faded pink, blue, or yellow. The F-16 Falcon and the F-18 Hornet both have a traditional black-colored tint. However, the F-15 Eagle does not seem to sport any canopy tints. Same with the F-14 Tomcat, although it is no longer in-service and the majority of the F-14 fleet has been dismantled.
So, here is my question: Why is it that only some US fighters have a tint while others do not?
My first assumption is that it would be to protect the advanced avionics from being viewed, while other, more outdated aircraft do not need as much protection of their avionics and flight systems, which would explain the F-15. However, I may be wrong about all of this and the tint may purely be to prevent the pilots from being blinded by the sun.
I have yet to find a definitive answer to the whole tinting phenomenon anywhere on the web, so I would like to see if anyone here would perhaps have the answer I'm looking for.

Note that the "outdated aviionics" in the F-14/15 were basically brand new & cutting edge when the plane first made it to production, so needing no protection from spying eyes doesn't really make sense.

I don't think this question should have been closed. The purported duplicate answer is only valid for one of the tints, only for one of the listed planes, and only for limiting RCS. This question seems to be much broader, and possibly has a similar answer to why glider canopies also frequently have tints or are reflective. For gliders, it's in order to reduce solar load (it gets hot under a bubble canopy) and to reduce UV aging of cockpit equipment.


text:
What was the actual cockpit layout and crew of the Mi-24A?
I have spent all morning trawling around the Internet trying to get a definitive answer on this. In the early Mi-2A variant with the large glass cockpit enclosure, what was the actual crew and layout? What I believe, based on the model kit I have, and at least one computer modeled cockpit, is that the crew is and was always two, the Mi-24A was semi-tandem with the pilot in the back, offset to port, the gunner in the front center. But every webpage I find seems to say something different. Greg Goebels of AirVectors, who seems to generally know his stuff, states in his book that the crew of the Mi-24A was "pilot, navigator and gunner, later reduced to two crewmen in tandem in the later variants". Another page claims it was "pilot and co-pilot and gunner", implying that the visibility problems arose from the presence of the side-by-side seating for the pilots. A third site, which includes numerous detailed technical specifications for the aircraft, states that early Mi-24s had "either 3 or 4 crew" including two pilots, a gunner and a navigator.
I am pretty sure the Mi-24 has always had two crewmen, and I think these sources are perpetuating old speculation from authors who never had a chance to look inside of an Mi-24. And apparently now that we have access to them, no one thinks there is anything of interest inside the aircraft worth taking photos of.

The Mi-24 did always have tandem seating and a necessary crew of two, comprising a pilot and a gunner. The pilot was in the back and offset to the left of the gunner.
Later Mi-24A versions added an optional flight engineer seat, located behind the pilot. The flight engineer seat was retained for a while, but moved to the dismount/cargo cabin later, in the D and V versions.
Here are some views of the pilot's seat of the Mi-24A. This picture seems to have been taken close to the flight engineer's position:

The pilot's visibility in the Mi-24A was restricted because his seat wasn't raised far enough above the gunner. The cockpit had limited transparency from above, and the flat glazing produced glare in sunny conditions.
There was never a co-pilot or side-by-side seating. To digress a bit, side-by-side was used later in the Ka-52, and visibility was considered sufficient, as it is in most civil helicopters with that arrangement. The Mi-24A simply had a suboptimal cabin layout.
It's essentially a single enclosure for everyone: pilot, gunner, optionally flight engineer, and anyone in the back. Seems possible to move between the sections, but not easily. It wasn't a particularly optimized design, some of the space is unnecessary. Just a product of placing tandem seats in a fuselage too wide for one, not wide enough for side-by-side.

Then the large greenhouse cockpit was replaced by two separate armored cockpits with bubble canopies that offer 360-degree better visibility, as seen on D, V, and later variants.
There is an article online listing every single variant. You can find more photos if you search by Cyrillic designations - there seems to be a few helos left out in a boneyard museums.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can I get an EASA Class 1 medical with high astigmatism?
I have high astigmatism (5 dioptres) and myopia (under the limit). Is it possible to acquire a Class 1 medical certificate? If I recall correctly, it's up to the ophthalmologist to judge whether I should get the certificate.
If not, is there something equivalent to the FAA SODA? I know about a medical flight test but I have no idea how it works and if it's possible to do it in order to acquire a Class 1 medical certificate.

There isn't an equivalent of FAA SODA under EASA regulations.
The final decision is up to the ophtalmologist (in agreement with the AME). You should bring to the medical examinations all supporting material to help him take an informed decision.
In case you won't pass the medical examination, you will be given right to appleal. For the appealing procedure you will have to prepare a dossier to persuade that you are fit for the EASA Class 1 medical.
Good luck!

Thank you for your answer! At least that gives me some hope. If you dont mind me asking what do you mean by the dossier for the appealing process? What should I include there apart from medical examinations?

It depends on your case, you may need to consult with someone expert in Air Law. You may include medical exams, reports from doctors, reports from flight instructors. Think of it as a way of proving that you won't be an hazard in the sky

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Are Transponder Mode A and C still in use?
Are the ATC transponder Mode A and Mode C still in use (according to ICAO or FAA rules)?

Mode A+C are still used all over the world. It might be easier to answer if you provide a bit of context and explain why you are asking.

I can’t find a source but I suspect that Mode A only transponders have not been sold since the mid-1980s (or even earlier) so you aren’t likely to find any currently installed. Mode C transponders all have the ability to turn off the altitude reporting capability if ATC is receiving bad data and act like Mode A transponders. I don’t normally fly where ADSB is required so I’ll keep mine until it stops working.

Yes. According to Title 14 CFR §91.215   ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
Specifically:

(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
  conducted under part  121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder
  equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental
  requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of
  TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate,
  or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).

the use of Mode A or Mode C (e.g.: Mode A with altitude reporting capability) is acceptable for flight under Part 91. That covers all of general aviation (GA), of which a large percentage use Mode A/C transponders.
With the upcoming ADS-B mandate, many GA operators are switching to Mode S to get the 1090 MHz ES ADS-B.  But others are keeping the Mode A/C and adding a 978 MHz UAT to meet the ADS-B requirement. In any case, there are still a large number of Mode A/C transponders in use and likely will be the case for quite a while.
Mode S is optional and only required for operations under Parts 121 (Air Carriers) and 135 (Air Taxi).
For Part 121, a Mode S transponder is required by §121.356   Collision avoidance system.
For Part 135, Mode S is required by §135.143   General requirements.


text:
What are these hooks and tassels on the nose?
What are the hooks and tassels hanging down from the nose of this aircraft?

If I'm not mistaken this is Brisbane airport (YBBN). Brisbane has a notorious problem with wasps building nests inside the tubes so much quicker than at other airports, so these covers are put on even for short turnarounds.

LoL. Thanks, Ben.

Related: Air data system failure involving Airbus A330-243, A6-EYJ, near Brisbane Airport

The things hanging on the left and right side of the nose are pitot covers. They cover the pitot tubes located here:

(Boeing 737 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning)
The covers are there to protect the narrow inlets from contamination or blockage:

Pitot tubes are normally covered when the aircraft is parked for more than a short period of time to reduce the chance of blockage or contamination.

(Pitot Static System on SYKbrary)
They are usually painted red and have REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT written on them:

(aircraftcovers.com)
Related:

What is the use of this remove before flight cover on the nose of a Bombardier Global 6000?
What steps have been taken to rule out instrument failure due to blocked static ports or pitot tubes?

The cable connected to the right side of the aircraft (left on your image) is the ground power cable. You can see it larger in this image:

(pinterest.com)
Related:

What is the cable connected to a plane for?
What powers an aircraft prior to the APU being switched on?
What's the plug used on airliners for ground power?

Excellent! Many thanks!!


text:
How is the RAT on the Airbus A320 family manually deployed?
I watched Captain Joe's video on this topic but he only said in case the RAT does not deploy that you can manually deploy it from the cockpit, but unfortunately he never stated how this worked? (I'm only new to the industry and just an av geek)

Jack, welcome to Aviation.SE. I took the freedom to add a link to a video of Capt. Joe which I think is what you are referring to. If I was wrong, please revert the edit.

Does this answer your question? How do Ram Air Turbines get deployed?

I don't think this is a dupe as the other question details only automatic deployment.

Thanks all for answering!

There is a pushbutton on the overhead panel in the hydraulics section to manually deploy the RAT:

5 RAT MAN ON pb
The flight crew may extend the RAT at any time by pressing the RAT MAN ON pushbutton.
Note: The RAT extends automatically if AC BUS 1 and AC BUS 2 are lost. (refer to 1.24.20).

(A320 FCOM - Hydraulics - Controls and Indicators)
There is another button on overhead panel in the EMER ELEC PWR section, which will also deploy the RAT and connect the emergency generator:

1 MAN ON pb (guarded)
AUTO: When the following conditions are met:

AC BUS 1 is not electrically supplied.
AC BUS 2 is not electrically supplied.
Aircraft speed is greater than 100 knots.

.

The RAT extends.
The blue hydraulics system drives the emergency generator.
As soon as the emergency generator electrical parameters are within tolerance and the landing gear is retracted, the emergency generator is connected to the aircraft network.

Pressed: This selects manual RAT extension. Emergency generator coupling occurs 3 seconds after the RAT supplies the emergency generator.

(A320 FCOM - Electrical - Controls and Indicators)
Here is the full RAT deployment and emergency generator logic from the FCOM:

There is another switch for manual RAT deployment on the emergency power panel. The emergency power panel deploys the RAT in hydraulics back-up mode, and if the buses are not powered, it connects to the electrical bus. Deploying the RAT from the hydraulics panel only pressurizes the blue hydraulics line, it does not provide power.

@RonBeyer Thanks, I completely overlooked that! I added it to the answer.


text:
What phraseology does ATC use with jet fighter pilots?
What do they usually say or ask when the fighter pilot wants to take off, when it's in the air, and what is the reply from the fighter pilot?

What makes you think it's particularly different from what ATC would say to a civilian pilot operating in the same airspace? Or do you want to know what ATC communications are like in general and are just using a military pilot as an example toward that end?

This ICAO document lays out the guidelines pretty well in short, in most places military aircraft (of any kind) are treated no different than civilian aircraft and are expected to comply with local regulations which include radio procedures. ATC will clear an F-22 for take off no differently than a Cessna 150 (with perhaps different expected climb rates ;) )
Of course most jurisdictions that belong to countries that have some kind of an Air Force will generally coordinate with them for special types of operations and the organization that controls the airspace expects that anyone wanting to conduct special operations will coordinate with them.
This typically happens in controlled areas like an MOA or for safer operations near a base. I fly quite a bit near a large base and often while transitioning through their airspace its not uncommon to get warnings of high speed or low altitude activity. Either way the aircraft is expected to make radio calls and adhere to any regulations or pre cleared operations.

As it happens (in the US at least) a takeoff clearance for an F-22 will differ from a C150 in the following way: The C150 hears "cleared for takeoff," takes off, and when they're a half-mile or so off the departure end will hear "contact departure." The F-22, being a single-pilot military turbojet, will hear "change to departure, cleared for takeoff." This is so they aren't made to fiddle with the radio when they're low-level immediately after taking off.


text:
Can someone identify these two Bell helicopters seen in the Czech Republic?
I would like to ask you for help with identification of two particular airframes.
On Sunday 13 May 2018 around 11.45 local time, I took a picture of two Bell UH-1s south of Brno, Czech Republic. I had only wide lens, so it is not very detailed shot. From what I can see, the heli on the left is very likely Bell 212 (or UH-1N), wearing some colorful paint, maybe in SAR version (it probably has also some sensor ball under nose, or reflector), the heli on the right appears to be Bell 214 wearing military camo or dark paint (green or brown), also with sensor ball. They were flying from east to west, approximately in direction from Slovakia to Germany.
Is anybody here able to help me with as precise identification of these two helicopters as possible: version, operator, tail number...?

The mystery has been solved.
Those two helicopters are Agusta-Bell AB 212 operated by Italian Air Force (Aeronautica Militare) coming for Tiger Meet in Poznan, Poland. Their flight route was a little bit confusing because they were VFR flight avoiding CTR.
The more colorful one wears new special tiger paint: https://www.planespotters.net/photo/836257/mm81151-aeronautica-militare-italian-air-force-agusta-bell-ab-212
The second one seems to wear standard camo: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-czFFf-7KQyA/Wvu5eNjjgXI/AAAAAAAAMQs/qN9qakgSI9QTmqfosho3Dr6DVmHl-nTNwCLcBGAs/s1600/NTM05.jpg
Thank you, Walker, for your input!

Your assessment seems reasonable. Left HAS a stabilizer bar, so probably 212 / UH1N. Right almost looks to have a stabilizer bar which would rule out 214 variants. If it in fact has a stabilizer bar, the modernized 205 now called 210 with the sharper nose would be my guess.


text:
What is the most effective way for a VFR pilot to scan the instruments during manoeuvres?
May I ask your opinion on what is the best and most effective pattern for a VFR pilot to scan their instruments during manoeuvres?

Can you clarify if you're asking about a) scanning for other traffic in visual conditions, or b) scanning your instruments in instrument conditions? Your question mentions VFR, but your tags are all about IFR and instruments, so I'm not sure what you're really asking.

Hi it will be on VFR Flying. Apologies on that, I couldn’t add any tags that relates to what I am asking about.

VFR Flying, scanning for instruments when you execute manoeuvres.

Thanks for the clarification, I've updated your question to make it clearer (hopefully!). If I got it wrong, please edit it again as you like.

A VFR pilot shouldn't really be "scanning" the instruments in the sense that an IFR pilot does; he should be scanning the sky for traffic (see my first answer) while using his peripheral vision to maintain attitude.  Yes, he should periodically (and briefly) check the instruments to make sure nothing is amiss, but then go back to scanning for traffic.  I wasn't taught any particular "scan" for that, just to look at whichever instruments seem most useful for what I'm doing at the moment.
If you're having trouble holding proper altitude and airspeed as a VFR student pilot (from a comment to other answer), you may be spending too much time looking at the instruments rather than not enough.  That may seem counter-intuitive, but the key to both is attitude.  Get the right attitude, using the artificial horizon or other instruments at first if necessary, then look outside at the real horizon (in particular, the relation of your nose to it) and then just maintain that picture while you do your traffic scan.
The only time a VFR pilot is supposed to be "scanning" the instruments is during hood training.  For that, I was taught the "T" scan: assuming you have a six-pack in the standard arrangement, you focus on the AI (top center) and then briefly look left at airspeed, then back, then down at heading, then back, then right to altitude, then back.  Repeat until the hood comes off.

Alright mate, thank you so much for your advice. I’ll force myself not to keep looking at the instruments when I do my first solo check ride today. Cheers!

(Answer based on original wording of question, which sounded like he was asking about scanning the sky for traffic.)
The method I was taught is to hold your eyes steady on each clock position for 1-3 seconds. This takes advantage of how your peripheral vision is more sensitive to movement. If your eyes are constantly moving, everything you see is moving, so your brain filters it all out.
For the same reason, if you know someone is there (CTAF or ATC calls) but don't see them right away, try looking 30° (one clock position) off angle either way to engage your peripheral vision.
Note that objects coming directly toward you don't move, which is why you need to scan with your detailed center vision to detect size changes. That also works better with the clock scan rather than continuous scan, but I'm not as sure why.

That’s something new for me. Looks like I have been scanning too fast that I’m not actually taking anything in! Thank you for your perspective and I’ll try to apply it the next sortie, and hopefully I will improve my height and airspeed maintenance for my first solo!

You detect movement with the low res but very sensitive cells in your peripheral vision, and resolve detail with the densely packed cells of the macula, the little pinky fingernail sized area in the center.  Just stare at text you haven't seen before and note how far away you can actually resolve letters without moving your view.  It's an area the size of a dime on a computer screen.  People with macular degeneration on their retinas can take in the big scene but have a little hole in the center and can't see any detail in their world.   They can only read text with huge letters.

I think there may be some confusion here. I believe your answer is about scanning for other traffic, but the OP has now clarified that the question is about scanning instruments.

@shogunnyan I'm confused about why you marked this as the accepted answer, since you were asking about scanning the instruments (not scanning for traffic), but this answer is about scanning for traffic (not scanning the instruments). Maybe you read this answer and mistakenly thought that it was about scanning the instruments?

Oh apologies. I thought the green tick was there to acknowledge that I read it. Ok undone the green tick!

@Pondlife Edited to clarify that.


text:
For what is VMCL the minimum control speed?
I would like to ask which of these options is correct:

VMCL is the minimum control speed for:
A) approach in go-around configuration
  B) approach in landing configuration
  C) go-around in approach configuration
  D) go-around in landing configuration

I would choose B but my friends disagree due to Certification Standards CS25.19 Minimum Control Speed stating that:

VMCL must be established with -
  (6) Go-around power or thrust setting on the operating engine(s).

However that doesn’t mean that my VMCL is the speed that I use for go-around, right? It just says that to establish my VMCL, I need to use go-around power as a reference.
Therefore I think that VMCL is basically just the minimum control speed during an approach in landing configuration.

I would go with B as well.  Minimum Control Speed - Landing is for the critical case where you are in the least favourable possible configuration on approach, gear down, full flap, trimmed at approach speed, C.G. at least favourable location, etc etc, then have one engine fail and the other is put to full power. VMCL is the speed at or above which control can be maintained at that instant maximum asymmetric trust is applied, before the airplane can accelerate or the configuration can be changed.  Go around speed in the approach configuration will be faster than VMCL.  VMCL is the edge of the cliff.

I think it should be
D) go-around in landing configuration.
This would have higher thrust at same speeds and configuration as B) (single engine go-around is at final approach speed without acceleration) and would thus be the more critical case. The minimum control speeds really only come into play at high thrust settings, and I read the multiple choice options to imply thrust settings (otherwise there wouldn’t be a difference between B and D).

There is an interesting semantic issue here.  It's a pretty diabolical question.  Imagine trying to parse that question if English was your second language.  Anyway, doesn't D imply that the only time you have to respect VMCL is at the time a go around is initiated?  My thinking is the limitation applies at all times you are in a landing configuration, ie gear down full flaps, for the possibility of full asymmetric power being applied for any reason.  It doesn't only apply once the full asymmetric power is applied; it's the defense against losing control if that occurs.

@JohnK I agree. If I recall correctly, the only large aircraft I know where VMCL is actually a defining limit speed are the 777-200LR/F variants (short fuselage, ginormous engines). VMCL considerations keep VREF high for light weights, so - yes, the limit is inherently considered throughout approach, landing and go-around phase due to target speeds being based on VREF, but the critical point which defines the magnitude of VMCL is at the point where go-around thrust is set on n-1 engines (the nth one being dead) with the aircraft in landing configuration at final approach speed.

D) CAAS ATPL accepted Go around speed in landing Configuration.


text:
Have I made a calculation mistake in this ATPL question that uses the CAP 698 Chart?
I have been calculating this question but I just don't seem to get the correct answer.
For this question use Performance Manual CAP 698 SEP1 Figure 2.3.
Using the climb performance chart, for the single-engine aeroplane, determine the   ground distance to reach a height of 2000 ft in the following conditions:

Given:
OAT at take-off: 25°C
Airport pressure altitude: 1000 ft
Aeroplane mass: 3600 lb
Speed: 100 KIAS
Wind component: 15 kt Headwind

My Workings
*TAS = 104kt (from using CRP-5)
GS = 104kts - 15kts = 89kts*
Climb Gradient = 10.7% (from chart)
Still Air Distance = (2000 / 10.7) X 100 = 18,691ft
Ground Distance = 18691 X (89/104) = 15,995ft

But the CAE Oxford ATPL says that 16,850ft is the answer.
The next closest answer is 15,750ft which is what I would choose.
Please help me out here, thank you in advance!

Reference:
CAE Oxford ATPL Chapter 8, Question 4.

FWIW I also calculated 18,691. I checked your speed calc using a E6-B, I checked your use of the chart I alos got 10.7% (ish) and I also go 18,691 ft. Quite often these questions in study material print the wrong answer

@Jamiec Thank you so much for your verification! Now I can sleep in peace.

The relevant section (3.2.3) of CAP 698 explains how to calculate this as follows:

Distance to Reach given height.
To calculate the ground distance travelled in order to attain a given height above
reference zero:
a) Convert the IAS 100 kt to a TAS, assume no position error.
b) Apply the wind component to the TAS to obtain the ground speed.
c) Determine the climb gradient from the graph.
d) Calculate the still air distance using the formula:
$$\text{Still Air Distance} (ft) = \frac{\text{Height Difference} (ft)}{\text{Gradient}} \times 100$$
e) Calculate ground distance using the formula:
$$\text{Ground Distance} = \text{Still Air Distance} \times \frac{\text{Groundspeed}}{\text{TAS}}$$

Assuming your calculation of TAS is right, and your interpretation of the graph is right (which I agree with) you can plug this into the above calculations and confirm the answer is indeed:
Ground Distance = 15,995ft
However, if we play devil's advocate and reverse engineer the climb gradient from the expected answer, you'll see there might be some human/interpretation error at work.
Taking the published answer of 16,850ft and dividing by $\frac{\text{Groundspeed}}{\text{TAS}}$ gives us a ground distance of 19,690ft. Take this and Divide by 100 gives 196.9. Then doing $\frac{1}{196.9} \times \text{Height Difference} (ft)$ gives a resulting climb gradient of 10.2 - this is all just mathematics, no aviation knowledge required.
Now, can you say for sure that you've not misread/misused the chart? Once again I got the same result as you by looking at it in low def on a screen. But it's possible we both miscalculated the climb gradient.

Side note: I see question like this come up fairly regularly on other aviation forums, and a reasonable amount of time it is student error and a reasonable amount of time it is publication error. Make of that what you will.

Hmm interesting take on the answer. I will do the same and see what I come up with. Thank you once again @Jamiec. You sound like a ground school instructor hahaha.

I'm still convinced that both our solutions are correct. There's no way the interpretation of the chart will give us 10.2%.I have been drawing the lines on the printed version and I have not got anywhere close to 10.2%. But anyway thank you for offering your knowledge, really appreciate it.

I'm not even slightly a ground school instructor. It's been nearly 20 years since I had to learn this stuff, and embarrassingly I don't use it nearly enough as I tend to fly places where I know I have enough safety margin. But when I see a question like this I like to refresh my knowledge and try it out.


text:
Take-off and landing a Waco Standard Cabin QDC
I'm sure you hear it all the time: Someone's writing a book and want to know how to fly a plane.  I'm no different in that regard. However, I have a specific plane: a Waco Standard Cabin QDC, 1931.  The year of this book is 1935, taking off from a small airport, no frills, and this scene is in April.  Do I have to be so specific?  No.  Do I want to be?  Yes.  Why?  Because writing matters enough to me to invest time and money into it, even if I'll never break even and the only payment in the end is the reward of having something I'm proud to say I was a part of.
If it makes ANY difference, the weather that day was a low of 34°F and a high of 48°F, no precipitation.  (I'm that dork who looked up the actual weather for that actual location on the actual date because even if no one else will know, I will know.)
Give it to me technically.  If possible, screw the layman's terms.  What would a pilot look for?  What would they do?  Trying to be as accurate as possible matters a lot to me, even when it's details no one is likely to notice. If there's a flight manual out there for this particular plane, I'll read it if I can be hooked up with it.
(No it doesn't necessarily be this specific plane, but whenever I've seen questions like this asked, the comments were full of people asking specifics about the plane, year, make, model, engine type, etc. I'm heading that off at the pass.)

"a lot (low) of 34 and a high of 48"... is that in Fahrenheit or Celsius (are we in a desert in North Africa, or a typical upper midwest early spring?

How many people in the world, still living, do you think would have direct experience of flying this particular model of plane? So are you just asking about the general sense of flying a biplane of that era? Because that sounds more plausible than direct experience with a specific (possibly one-off) 1931 bi-plane.

As an author myself I would suggest that "getting it right" may not be worth it, the vast majority of your audience won't know the difference or really care. You're better off focusing on other aspects of the story unless there's a specific angle you want to try and work into the storyline, like a mechanical issue. In any case your question is far too broad as there are too many aspects, and therefore off-topic.

I'm gonna venture a guess there are some that still fly this particular plane, and hundreds of those flying very similar ones. I've never flown any such machines so I can't help, but I bet some here have flown and still maybe do fly these or a close match.

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepWacoQDC.html

GdD, I know the majority, if all, of my audience wouldn't know the difference, but my audience also knows that I research to the hilt.  I've got some FOIA requests in right now for a later book in this series.  Would anyone know if I fudged what that's about, or if I made up the date for a law chance in New York?  Nope.  Do I care? Absolutely, and when your audience comes to expect research to the point that they look into things themselves to try to find somewhere where you may be wrong, then many in my audience WILL know.

Ron, east coast early spring. :D

Jamie, there are a decent number of those planes still being flown, and others who've flown similar. When searching last night for others who've asked a similar question, a question asked back was always what plane, and a statement about how no one can answer if the kind of place wasn't known.

@RonBeyer, I presumed that it was °F in my edit. "East coast" seems to confirm that, though even the African continent has an "East coast"...

Jpe, I'm doubting that this particular plane is outside of what was considered ordinary, bur mentioned the type since I saw other questions similar, and always comments asking for the plane used, and if there are any known quirks or anything specific to this plane. :)

Jim, thanks. :D

Freeman, the African continent also has a midwest, technically speaking.

@GdD I highly respect every author who tries to get it right. So many books spoil all the fun by making stupid and simple to avoid mistakes because the author was sloppy. One wrong detail is already enough for me.

A few basics to get you started:
Very few light aircraft from 1931 had electric start (though it wasn't unheard of), and I'd be surprised if this Waco model did; the engine was started by pulling the propeller through by hand (this was an option even with electric start installed; the battery technology of the day was such that you couldn't really depend on the battery if the airplane had sat for even several days, never mind several weeks).
That model (based on the one photo I found quickly) appears to have no flaps, and if it had wheel brakes, they were rather weak by today's standards (wheel chocks highly recommended during starting).  That said, stall speed was fairly slow for aircraft in that general category; they were rather light and had a lot of lift from the biplane wing; takeoff was probably not much over 40 kt.
As mentioned in comments, with any conventional gear (taildragger) aircraft, one has limited or no forward visibility over the nose with the tailwheel on the ground, so would have to make S-turns during taxi to avoid hitting stuff -- and taildraggers also experience P-factor (a yaw force, usually to the left, due to the angle of airflow into the propeller) both at rotation for liftoff (as with all single engine propeller aircraft) and when the tailwheel is barely off the ground; this requires some right rudder pedal input to compensate (though light planes with, in this case, 160 hp weren't the widowmakers that aircraft like the Corsair fighter, with 2700 hp, were).
FWIW, you might look up some of Richard Bach's writings (best known for Jonathan Livinston Seagull) -- he owned and flew and wrote about some model Waco biplane, and they were all more similar than different.

You should also mention the obvious details, like snaking during taxi to see ahead and a yaw to the left (if the prop turns clockwise) when the tailwheel lifts off. Airfields in those days were round and allowed to take off and land in any direction, which made sense, given the influence of any wind at the low flight speed.

S-turn taxiing was universal to tail draggers, not the least specific to radial engines or biplanes never mind Waco biplanes (and I'm virtually certain Bach wrote bout it).  P-factor is more universal even than taildraggers; it happens with all large propellers when you pull angle of attack; the only difference is that with a taildragger it's immediately after raising the tail (but gone when you have the airplane level); with every propeller it's as soon as you rotate for liftoff.

The question is: "What would a pilot look for"? Of course for things that happen with all tail draggers.

Well, yes and no.  In 1935, every pilot would find tail-dragger "quirks" the everyday normal, because tricycle gear was very rare (even the US Navy ran taildraggers until the jet era started), so why would they even mention it?

"Nothing by Chance" featured a Parks biplane; not sure whether Bach ever wrote about a Waco that he owned.  A Waco that a friend of his owned did make an appearance in "Nothing by Chance", as I recall.

quarter view
Flight of NC12438 after Restoration
You're just in the process of stepping through that big door into the soft, mohair interior when you're struck by how bright the cabin is. Most cabin bipes, actually all cabin bipes, have a closed-in feeling. Their cabins may be huge. But a little dark. The QDC, however is like an upholstered greenhouse. The windshield works its faceted way up past the main spar to a nearly all glass roof. There is only a short area that is not glass, before the rear windows begin. The overall effect is incredibly cheerful. However, the solarium effect and heat stroke potential is obvious. A pilot could fry his brains in nothing flat.
Then you notice, or rather have pointed out by Alan, the tiny hook which is still welded to the carry through-over the pilots' heads. He reaches back and pulls a translucent, white window blind forward and fastens it to the hook. It looks for all the world like a garden variety, spring-loaded, roll-type window shade that completely blocks the skylight while letting a great deal of diffused light through. The neat part about the blind is that it is accurate to the airplane. 1930's pilots apparently perspired too.
Sitting in the co-pilots seat you have to look hard to find signs of the 1990s in the airplane. In fact, the only obvious one is a manifold pressure gauge attached to tubing under the panel. Other than that, it is totally 1932. You have to look down on the left cockpit side, behind Alan's left leg where there is a small one inch slot in the upholstery. If you snuggle over and look down, you can see the face of a radio and transponder mounted vertically behind the upholstery panel looking up at you. It is far from convenient to use, but it is practically invisible.
As the Continental 220 hp, R-670 (the original Continental was replaced in 1946 because it was such an early version) cranks over and that sound so identified with radials coming to life rumbles back through the codkpit, you suddenly realize the engine is only a few feet in front of you. If it weren't for the windshield, you could literally lean forward and touch the cylinders. This is when the F-2 lineage is noticeable, since that's the way it is in the front pit of that earlier airplane.

With the windows cranked down, elbows on the sills we worked our way past admiring stares to the runway. During taxi Alan scoots up the seat so his butt is half way up the back which allows him to see over the nose.
Since the wheel is of the throw-over variety and there were no brakes on the right side, obviously I was going to have to get a passenger's-eye view of the takeoff and landing. That's okay. I don't think I was up for making my first QDC takeoff/landing in front of several hundred thousand people anyway.
At full throttle, the engine sounded as if it was barely turning over as we began rolling leisurely down the runway. We rolled several airplane lengths, Alan picked up the tail, then another half dozen lengths later, the airplane floated off the runway. I want to repeat that... it floated off the runway. It didn't takeoff. Or rotate. Or do anything else we associate with modern airplanes. The wings developed so much lift, so early, they simply overcame gravity by themselves and we floated off the runway in a level attitude. The takeoff felt like the airplane looks. Very unique and enjoyable.
As soon as we were off the end of the runway, Alan pulled the pin and swing the big, round wheel over into my lap. Even as my hand curled around the polished wood, I began searching for traffic anywhere I could look, which included staring through the openings between the cylinders because they had no baffles and were right in my face at that climb angle.
The airplane was going up at over 800 fpm so it wasn't long before we leveled out and made our way across Lake Winnebago in search of clean airspace.

Even as we climbed I was conscious of the airplane's lighter-than-you-would-expect feel. Everything about the airplane feels, well, it just feels light. Just the way it felt on takeoff. The ailerons aren't light by modern standards but, when put against its peer group, the pressures are quite reasonable and the roll response is too. It's not a Pitts or even a Bonanza, but it is surprisingly quick. Again, the F-2 is felt.
The airplane needs rudder. Not huge amounts of it, but you can't drive around with your feet on the floor without being aware of your rearend trying to move back and forth on the seat. As with most WACO's, the rudder pedal ratio is short, so you don't actually move a pedal so much as pressure it. Also, keeping it coordinated noticeably increases the roll rate.
We were showing a solid 115 mph at cruise and I asked Alan if that was right. He said that was the exact number he uses for flight planning, which is amazingly fast considering. Considering, I could look out at the bottom of the wing panels and see things like polished brass fuel lines hanging right out in the wind on their way to the engine. It's big. It's blunt. It's aerodynamically dirty. It's also fairly fast. Its looks are deceiving.
Power-back and wheel hugged to my chest I could see why the airplane was so successful in the old-time bush environment. I never did get the stall to break and the airspeed was hanging under 40 mph while we sagged down hill at something around 500 fpm. With even a hint of power we could stagger along at 45-50 mph all day long and feel perfectly comfortable.
Back in the pattern that slow speed friendliness was again obvious. I flipped the wheel back over to Alan and he came down final at 60 mph to land on the taxiway (18 Left). As we flared and slowed for a wheel landing, it was as if we were coming to a halt before we even touched down on the mains. Then, as the wind went out of the tail I was again reminded of the F-2 as the tail started down. And down. Then down still more until we were again sitting on the ground at the incredibly steep three-point angle of those early airplanes. Because the angle is at, or close, to the actual stall angle of the airplane, a design practice long since abandoned, if something like the QDC is three-pointed, it slows down even more before touchdown.

A video takeoff and landing

Now I have a bit of time, so I give it a try. I am not familiar with your chosen type of airplane but I think a few things should be obvious.
The scene is in April, and the low that day is near zero degree Celsius. So there is dew on the ground (and the plane, if it wasn't hangarized for the night) and the moist air will make the fabric of the covering a bit less taut. Not that you see dimples - just the "pong" sound that you would expect from a dry fabric covering when knocking on it will be a bit dull in those conditions.
Next, the engine. The Waco QDC used a Continental A-70 which is a radial engine. When the engine is started after some time, oil will have collected in the lower cylinders. Some people will start the engine immediately, resulting in a huge puff of smoke from the exhaust. The careful pilot will crank the engine a few times with the ignition off so the oil can be pushed out first.
We've had a similar question a while back, so I hope you don't mind when I borrow some of the answer from there.
Now we have the passengers and baggage loaded and the engine running. The pilot should wait until engine temperature is high enough to run the engine at full load. He will watch the oil temperature gauge until it shows the required temperature. The next step would be the magneto check.
During taxi, the pilot needs to kick the rudder pedals alternately right and left in order to see straight ahead. This results in a funny snaking course but is standard with taildraggers like your Waco. With the nose high up in the air, forward visibility is very poor. Also, the pilot will want to pull the control horn (stick? - please, if someone has that detail, help out!) all the way towards him to deflect the elevator trailing edge up. This is done to avoid a headstand (see the link before for an example) and to have a firm downforce on the tail.
The Waco VKS-7 had control horns (see here), so I assume the same for the QDC.
When the plane has reached the starting point for its take-off roll, the pilot will orient the aircraft into the wind (airfields back then were mostly round grassy patches, so the take-off direction could be freely selected in order to take off directly into the wind) and slowly advance the throttle (if done too fast, again the nose might tip over) and again keep the control horn pulled to keep the tail down. At a fairly leisurely speed the tail will produce enough lift (being in the slipstream of the propeller) and raising the tail will reduce the drag from the wings, so the pilot will relax the back pressure on the horn. At the same time when the tail comes up, the nose of the plane will yaw a bit to the left from gyroscopic forces - the spinning propeller has enough momentum to force the plane maybe 10° off course if not countered by a firm kick on the right rudder pedal. A good pilot will anticipate this and will kick the rudder at the same time when the back pressure on the controls is relaxed.
Liftoff is rather unspectacular and happens when the aircraft is fast enough. However, if elevator trim is set the wrong way, the aircraft will stay on the ground for too long (too much nose-down trim) or lift off too early at a too slow speed (too much nose-up trim). Trim means that a spring in the elevator linkage is set such that it pulls the elevator to a certain deflection angle. This is helpful for adjusting control forces according to the desired flight speed and center of gravity location, but if it is set the wrong way on takeoff, the pilot might be surprised by unusual stick forces.
Enroute there is not much to say, except that rudder trim (yes, Wacos had a small trim tab in the rudder) needs to be adjusted to engine power. The propeller does not only produce thrust, but also a side force and some torque which tries to roll the airplane left wing down. Read here for more. Another consideration is fuel-air mixture: When the airplane climbs, the mixture must be adjusted to a leaner setting. This is done both by sound and cylinder head rsp. exhaust temperature. If the pilot forgets to set the mixture back to richer during descent, the engine will run too lean, resulting in a rough sound and maybe even a drop in power output. The engine will not stop, however, because the airstream keeps the prop spinning.
Landing is the opposite of take-off: The pilot might first want to circle the field to check conditions, watch for smoke or a windsock to choose landing direction and then, with the engine set to idle, glide into the field, pulling the control horn a bit to soften the touchdown. During rollout he will avoid to use the brakes, again pulling on the stick when slow enough to avoid tipping over. Taxi is done again with that snaking pattern.

Here is a drawing of the QDC, which indeed has horns on the elevators (per this drawing), and a wheel, as can be seen in this photo of the original interior.


text:
How hard is it to certify a kit aircraft if it is based on a production design like a Cessna 180?
I was looking at older planes, specifically the Cessna 180. It is discontinued, but people love them, so they fetch premiums. I saw St. Just Aviation has a kit Cessna 180. There are only 25ish planes in existence.
I'm curious if it would still take a large amount of testing to certify their replicated design - since the Cessna 180 already went through all that years ago?

Welcome to aviation.SE! I made a few minor changes to your wording and I added the Transport Canada tag because St Just Aviation seems to be a Canadian company so their regulations would apply (I assume). Feel free to rollback or edit again if I changed things too much.

@Pondlife Kits themselves aren't certificated. The planes built from the kits are certificated under the jurisdiction of the builder. So if the kit builder is in the US, the FAA rules would apply even though the kit is sourced from Canada. In the US, the kit-built aircraft would need to be certificated under the Experimental - Amateur Built rules. The downside is that E-AB comes with limitations, the biggest being the aircraft can not be used for commercial operations.

The A/B regs in Canada are similar to US, with the requirement for 51% of the construction by the builder etc.  The two most significant differences are that there is a pre-cover/pre-closure inspection required in Canada vs just a final inspection in the US, and Canada has no "repairman's certificate" requirement for the original builder, or subsequent owners, for signing off annuals.  Whoever's name is on the C of R (can be your grandmother) can sign all maintenance releases, mods, structural repairs, engine overhauls etc., including an annual condition inspection, on a Canadian homebuilt.

The FAA requires all aircraft above a certain weight (>ultralight) to be certified. You can certify the design and production process so that everything that comes out of the factory has a guaranteed level of safety, or you can certify the result. The former gets a standard certificate, the latter gets a special airworthiness certificate. Other jurisdictions make similar distinctions, with minor variations.
Kit planes, such as your 180 replica, get a special airworthiness - amateur built certificate. FAA AC 20-27G outlines the process for satisfying this requirement. It is sixty pages of instructions, limitations and forms. The two most commonly mentioned requirements are for majority construction by the amateur and for flight testing.

It is important to document the entire fabrication and assembly process from the beginning to the end, in a continuous and sequential manner. This is because, at the time of certification, the FAA is required to ascertain whether the amateur builder(s) fabricated and assembled the major portion of the aircraft. Making this finding requires adequate, sufficient, and credible documentation.

For flight testing

It does not matter to the FAA whether or not it was based on some production certified aircraft.

We do not certify amateur-built aircraft designs or require that you modify the design before airworthiness certification. However, we may deny airworthiness certification when we inspect your aircraft if we find it does not meet the requirements for the certification you request or is not in a condition for safe operation.

This is far less stringent that the requirements for a standard certificate. You will have to decide whether you consider this "a large amount of testing".

As I understand it (I am not a pilot) kits basically do an end-run around the normal certification process.
Type certification is a very arduous process, but in some countries (including the US and Canada) Amateur-Built aircraft can receive a special airworthiness certificate under much lighter rules (the US considers this a sub-type of "experimental"). By selling the aircraft as a kit and having the end user do a sufficient proportion of the work the aircraft counts as Amateur-Built and the costs of type-certification are avoided.
The downside of those rules though is that they come with operating limitations that prevent or severely restrict commerical use. So if you want the aircraft for fun then a kit clone is fine, but if you want it for work then you will need to splash out for a type-certified original.


text:
In which countries can I fly an FAA compliant Part 103 ultralight?
İf I have a legal part 103 ultralight as defined by the FAA, in which countries may I fly this ultralight in the world in addition to the USA?

There's no such thing as an FAA certified Part 103 ultralight. The FAA does not issue certificates for Part 103 ultralights.

I removed the "certificate" part of the question so it now makes sense.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking if there are other countries that will let you fly a part 103 ultralight under the FAA's rules, i.e. no registration, no training, no pilot's certificate? Or are you asking if other countries will let you fly it under their rules, which might include registration and a pilot's certificate?

Although the formula for compliance is somewhat different, in general you can fly an ultralight that is compliant with FAR 103 in Canada as a Basic Ultralight.  The major difference is it has to be registered (not certified in any way, just registered with call letters), and you need an Ultralight Pilot Permit to fly it.


text:
How to calculate the Gust Envelope?
I am trying to draw the V-n Diagram for a small aircraft I built, but I am stuck in the gust envelope part. I know how it is supposed to look. However, I am having a hard time calculating it. I would like to know (1) why it's composed of four lines; and (2) how to find the slope of each line. So far, I have these three equations:

Also, (3) why do these equations describe the gust envelope, and (4) what each variable in the equations stands for?

Where did you get the equations?

They are from a study guide from an aero design competition. Fairly reputable source. I've also seen them in other places, but if they are wrong, please let me know.

@fooot Those are straight from the now deprecated FAR 23.341 and may be used in the absence of a more rational method to calculate gust loads.

The gust envelope is four lines overlaid on the flight envelope, usually the plus/minus of maximum gust at design cruising speed (Vc) and half maximum gust at maximum speed (Vd) as required by the certifying authority. This is usually +-50ft/sec (15.2m/sec) and +-25ft/sec (7.6m/sec).

n is the normal acceleration in a sharp edged gust
K is the tailplane gust alleviation factor. In a canard this is an aggravation factor.
u is the airplane mass ratio

The source contains examples of how the lines are calculated. The following information (defined) is required:

Thanks a lot for this. The only thing I didn't understand was the 2-D aerofoil lift-curve slope. Is it a tabled value different for each airfoil? If not, how do I calculate it?

@UnicornLord It is different for each airfoil and derived from the airfoil's lift/AOA table. The reference's reference 1 shows how to calculate it. You can also google "lift curve slope" to see alternate descriptions. It usually turns out to be around 5-6/rad or about 0.1/degree. The example had 5.7/rad, oddly similar to but completely unrelated to the wing aspect ratio.


text:
Where can I find a cross sectional area plot for the A320 or other modern airliners?
I'm studying to become a pilot and stumbled upon the Raptor Aircraft a while ago.
In one of our subjects we briefly discussed the concept of the area rule but did not get into much detail since our teacher told us that for subsonic airplanes it is not very relevant, especially not for slow flying piston aircraft.
But the designer of the Raptor Aircraft gets into a lot of detail why the Raptor is shaped like it is and what performance benefits it provides.
To me the charts provided on this site make a lot of sense and it seems plausible that there is a drag reduction of 15%.
I get that for airliners 'ease of build' is a major factor and therefore the cabin is a cylinder (reasons described in this question). (Sidenote: as far as I know the A380 has a double bubble design.)
Here comes the question: can someone provide a chart of the cross sectional area like this one for the A320 or another jet airliner?
What interests me is how much performance gain/fuel savings/drag reduction could be achieved if one were to optimise the cross sectional area of an airliner.

They do keep the area rule in mind when designing transsonic airliners. Although you don't much see anti-shock bodies on new airliners.

There seem to be plenty of drawings available with A320 dimesions.
https://www.google.com/search?q=a320+cross+sectional+area&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=xqsB2UJmwNJExM%253A%252CZ-goV0XUZnxtFM%252C_&usg=__VvKRKRr0Rto02mNZc1OcLUazPPY%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUpvCm54XbAhWBPZoKHXyTC9gQ9QEILTAB#imgdii=3XaIv6qHo-5doM:&imgrc=IdDuWmIhnnky0M:  I'd suggest pulling the data from several as needed and model the A320 so you can try changes in SolidWorks as the Raptor design team did for their video.
Maybe SolidWorks has a student license you can download & use.
https://www.solidworks.com/

I considered making this a comment as it deals with the premise of your question, but not the actual question. I put it here anyway.
Raptor is nothing like an airliner, which is the stated object of your question. I would be cautious about any comparisons of a paper airplane against one that actually flies, and about extrapolating any aerodynamic principle from one flight regime to another.
Area ruling affects wave drag, which simply is not present on this optimistically rated 230kt prop powered aircraft. The aircraft would have to be going twice its planned speed for a swept wing to begin to delay drag rise onset, the reason commercial airliners use it.
The Raptor's wing is swept in order to place its vertical control surfaces as far aft as possible since it does not have a conventional tail. Calling it area ruling is wishful engineering at best, camouflage at worst. At low speeds a swept wing has many handling problems and a straight wing (as the SR22 has) is far superior. How many low speed aircraft do you see with swept wings?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is there a procedure for landing on an aircraft carrier when the tailhook fails to deploy?
When landing on aircraft carriers, a tailhook is used to snag one of the cables on the carrier deck, which slows the aircraft.
When the landing gear fails to deploy I have seen it is possible to make an emergency landing by landing on the belly - and I'm sure there are other options too.
However, what would a pilot do if the tailhook failed to deploy when landing on a carrier? Is the carrier deck long enough for a pilot to stop without the tailhook? What else could a pilot do in this situation?

It's not a rope. It's heavy duty cabling.

Look up "bolter (aviation)"

The high landing speeds of modern jets mean that they cannot make anything but an arrested landing as the carrier flight deck is too small.The carriers usually have barricades to facilitate emergency landings. The following image shows a barricade.

Image source
The following image shows the barricade, raised.

Image source
The following image shows an aircraft using a barricade.The aircraft was unable to make a normal arrested recovery because of damaged landing gear.

"US Navy DN-SC-93-04867 to 04876 S-3A Viking emergency landing USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) animation" by PH3 Eric Hayhurst - This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID DN-SC-93-04867 to 04876 Commons.
See here for some other cases where barricades were used.

I'd clarify, the arresting net is only used in advance of them knowing the tail hook has not deployed. In the event they don't know until they touch down and miss the wire, its treated like a normal carrier landing which is at full military power, to provide for an immediate take-off should the approach fail. After that somebody should notice that the hook has failed to deploy or is damaged and start exploring other options, with diverting to a base at the top of the list if fuel is available.

If the issue were simply a failed tail hook, I would think the best bet would be a midair refueling (or two) and a ground landing. I can't imagine that hitting that 'netting' would be particularly nice to the air frame. For a failed gear landing, that would seem to me to be the best option, since it prevents the plane from scraping along a runway waiting for metal/concrete friction to stop it.

Where possible a net landing is certainly avoided: but if the fighter was always operating within 1 refuelling hop of a base, there wouldn't be much need for carriers!

The net usage is called a "nylon landing."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is it possible for an SU-25 to fly high enough to shoot down a Boeing 777?
A common theory from pro-Russian netizens surrounding the MH-17 tragedy is that it was a Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 ground attack plane that shot down the civilian airliner. However, the MH-17 was flying at an altitude of 10,500 meters when the service ceiling of an SU-25 is 7,000 meters. They say that this discrepancy is compensated by the fact that the Ukrainian pilot used afterburners to get to the height the MH-17 was flying at. Is this actually technically possible?

The SU-25 looks wimpy, isn't it possible they used a better fighter jet such as a MiG?

@shortstheory I guess the rumour specifically mentions the Su-25 because they were being used in the area around the time: one of them was shot down a few days before the MH-17 shoot-down, for example.

@DavidRicherby the Russians have also specifically claimed that they tracked an Su-25 close to MH-17 around the time of the attack

@shortstheory actually an Su-25 is less "wimpy" than a MiG, it can take a far heavier beating and remain flying. It's heavily armoured to survive in ground attack missions in support of ground troops, while being shot at.

@jwenting Interesting, I said wimpy based on its performance specs which don't appear to tell the whole story.

@shortstheory they never do, you also have to consider what its mission is. And its mission doesn't require high speed or a high service ceiling (though the latter can be handy for ferry flights of course, but then again do you give a bulldozer roadwheels so it can drive on the motorway? of course not.)

It would be hard for a pilot to use afterburners on an Su-25, since it is powered by non-afterburning turbojets! :)

Looking at the multiple comments, this has been turned into discussing the conspiracy theory as much as (if not more than) the capability. I don't think it was necessary to develop the theory. Asking what is the ceiling of the Su-25, and how it can be exceeded would have been sufficient. No?

Scott Locklin wrote an excellent answer to this question.

The SU-25 is a ground attack fighter unsuited to intercepting and/or shooting down 777s. If the Ukrainian air force wanted to do so, they have better aircraft available.
The SU-25 max speed is slower than a cruising 777.
The SU-25 has an operational ceiling of 16000 ft with max weapons to 23000 ft clean, MH17 was at 33000 ft.
It is an unpressurised aircraft.
As a ground attack aircraft it probably only rarely carries air to air missiles. It can carry the R-60 infra-red air-to-air missile which has a 6 lb warhead effective against small aircraft.

An R-60 once hit and destroyed one engine of a small BAE 125 business jet at 35000 ft but failed to bring it down, apparently the missile failed to explode.
KAL902, a Boeing 707, was hit by an R-60 and made an emergency landing 40 minutes later.

The R-60 is a short-range missile (5 miles). The Russians claim the SU-25 came within two or three miles of MH17.

On the whole this makes the SU-25 a poor choice for shooting down a cruising 777.
It seems unlikely that a 777 would be shot down in this way. Not impossible, but far less likely than other proposed scenarios such as those involving BUK (SA-11) ground to air missiles.

Results of an R-60 hitting a jet engine on a BAe-125-800A.

Results of an R-60 hitting a Boeing 707 - two R-60s were launched, one missed.
These R-60s were fired by supersonic interceptors, not by SU-25 ground-attack aircraft.

Thanks for the answer. I think the R-60 has a 6lb warhead though, not a 6Kg warhead. I'll accept this answer after the edit.

Any idea why these pro-Russian netizens accuse the SU-25 instead of accusing a more suitable fighter available to Ukraine? I wonder if what's happening here is that some very sloppy conspiracy theorists are getting in the way of more competent attempts to blame it on Ukraine by creating a ready-made straw man argument ;-)

@SteveJessop: I suspect the accusation was primarily intended for domestic audience as Putin gained huge popularity with the aggressive approach to Ukraine and couldn't admit mistake. And for commoners accusing Su-25 that is known to operate in the area might be more believable than accusing more suitable fighter that nobody mentioned so far though it makes the accusation clearly false to the knowledgeable. The accusation came from Ministry of Defence, so sloppy conspiracy theorist don't sound likely.

@SteveJessop ever met a conspiracy theorist who knew what he was talking about? If you can come up with an improbable aircraft for the scenario, you can dream up improbable things like rocket engines strapped under the wings to get it up there as well (not that farfetched, such things were attempted with interceptors in the 1950s, but not realistic in this case, especially as the missile tracks coming out of Russian held territory intercepting the airliner were recorded).

@jwenting: The missile track is what I am most willing to discredit, because that is a word of USA Ministry of Defense (claiming to have recorded the track) against work of Russian Ministry of Defense (pushing this Su-25 theory). I consider the comments made by the separatists on Twitter and then deleted as more important evidence because the dynamics of the situation would make that much more difficult to fake.

@JanHudec me too, I have my doubts about anyone's ability to record a missile track on radar like that unless they're deliberately looking for it at the time. And the US had no reason to have assets looking for missile tracks over the Ukraine that day.

@jw: The DSP satellite constellation has a primary mission of detecting the launch of both strategic and tactical missiles. It seems plausible that after the seizure of Crimea by Russia and the concern over Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine that the US military might have an interest in activity in that region.

@RedGrittyBrick Strategic and Tactical missiles are around 10 times the size of a surface-to-air missile and fly for much, much longer.

@JanHudec They say it was an SU-25 because that is the craft that operates in the area and, more importantly, an SU-25 can be seen on flightradar24.com near where MH-17 is.

@SteveJessop because they say that there was an SU25 in the area, not another aircraft: http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=3585 in particular : http://avherald.com/img/malaysia_b772_9m_mrd_donetsk_140717_9.jpg

The comments of the linked article are also worth a read. The truth is, a SU-25 IS capable of jumping up high enough above service ceiling, and flying an intercept course to get close enough for long enough to shoot down an airliner. It would not be my first choice of the Ukrainian arsenal, but it would provide plausible deniability. However, it's only one of any possible scenarios proposed thus far, I'd wait for actual conclusive reports with facts to back them before coming to conclusions about who and what was used to shoot the plane down.

If SU-25 of Mr Voloshin or another one was the jet that downed MH17, it was probably not a result of a planning - but an unlucky accident. They were not trying to find the best aircraft to do the job at any moment. This elementary fact makes most of this answer completely irrelevant and misleading.

@LubošMotl That would make it even less probable. Flying an intercept course to something that is traveling at twice your altitude and faster than your maximum speed is not something that can be done accidentally.

I wasn't suggesting that it was an accident that the missile hit the target. I was suggesting it was an accident that the shooters decided that the target urgently needed or deserved to be downed - probably due to misidentification. Obviously, once this decision is made, they aim, and the probability of hitting the target is rather high.

I have no idea how that small commercial jet, with half a wing looking like swiss cheese and the engine blown off managed to land. God bless the pilots and the engineers who built that plane.

You're asking 4 things here:

Can aircraft fly higher than their stated service ceiling?
Service ceiling can be exceeded, depending on the aircraft type, loadout, atmospheric conditions, and flight profile, but usually not very far or for very long.

Does an SU-25 have afterburners?
The SU-25 (NATO reporting name Frogfoot) has no afterburners, so that part of the claim is bonkers.

Does an SU-25 have the capability to shoot down aircraft?
It can carry light IR guided missiles for self defense, and of course has a gun, but would have no way to intercept an airliner at altitude, it doesn't have the endurance there nor the equipment to detect and track the aircraft (though in theory a ground controller could guide it of course).

Would an SU-25 be used for an intercept like that?
Why should the Ukraine use an SU-25 ground attack aircraft when they have dedicated air defense fighters far more capable for the job?

So no, the claim is utterly bonkers.

The SU-25 has a very powerful gun, though--it's meant to tear through tanks, it certainly could shred an airplane.  Finding it, getting up there and getting hits would be very problematic indeed, though.

@LorenPechtel yes, it does (as I mentioned). And weirder things have brought down aircraft. For example in Iraq a USAF A-10 brought down a helicopter by dropping a 500lb bomb on it :)

@LorenPechtel: Yes it does. But for one thing if it can't reach the altitude, the distance would be rather large for good aim and for another the damage would look different from the shrapnel damage that was actually observed.

… which leads me to another argument. The debris show shrapnel damage to the front section of the aircraft. That is not consistent with IR-guided missile which would go for the engines from behind nor with cannon with shells exploding on contact. It also indicates heavier warhead than the few kg found in most air-to-air missiles.

@JanHudec front aspect IR missiles can track in on leading edges and I guess the nose of an aircraft. But AFAIK the AA-8 carried by the Su-25 doesn't have that capability. Yeah, the heavy warhead excludes any but the largest AAMs which would indicate a MiG-31 or similar, which Ukraine doesn't have (but Russia of course does).

@JanHudec Most A2A missiles use proximity fuses and there are an enormous number of variables determining the area of the aircraft taking the brunt of the damage.  Because the nose is peppered means nothing.  Nor does the amount of damage correlate to the assumed weight of the warhead.  The conspiracy theory is, as they always are, nonsense but the size and area of damage are not indicators (without other evidence) to prove or disprove air-2-air or ground-2-air.

@Simon of course its a conspiracy theory. the actual events that occurred... was also a conspiracy. everything that involves a plan is a conspiracy.

Parabolic trajectories above the service ceiling are possible. Just go up fast enough, and rely on inertia instead of lift to carry you upwards.
Of course, parabola's have the property that there's a long way up, a sharpish bend at the top, and a long way down again. That's not a practical way to intercept another aircraft, especially if your plane isn't designed to use off-board AA radar guidance to get the intercept course right (and a ground attack aircraft like the SU-25 wasn't designed like that at all - The Soviets had proper high-altitude interceptors for that)

More importantly you are exchanging speed for altitude, so at the top you are flying slower. And you must still fly fast enough to be above stall speed and (true) stall speed increases with altitude. So the aircraft would have to fly very fast before starting the climb. With the altitude difference probably faster than it's actual top speed.

To put some numbers out:  Looking over how the zero-g flights are conducted we find that you can trade 260kph for 1000m of height.  With more engine power you could get higher but you still have to fly a course between the Scylla of mach buffet and the Charybdis of stall and unless I'm making a math error you're not going to get 2000m out of it.

Flying on such parabolic trajectories also reduces the aircraft's ground speed as most of the speed is in the vertical direction. Which means it makes the already slow aircraft very much slower than the 777's cruising speed. So the only viable way for it to work is if the pilot starts climbing very far ahead of the 777 hoping to reach max altitude exactly when the 777 arrive. That's just silly.

It would not be impossible for a Su-25 "Frogfoot" carrying AA-8s to down an airliner, but it's very unlikely.
First off, let's get something out of the way; neither the R-95Sh engines on early variants, not the improved R-195 on the Su-25T variant, has an afterburner. The Su-25's primary mission profile requires it to fly low and slow over the battlefield to acquire and engage ground targets (it's the Russian answer to the A-10), and its low amount of wing sweep prohibits supersonic flight, so an afterburner is not only completely unnecessary, it's downright dangerous to try to use in a design like this. So, the idea that a Su-25 used afterburners to exceed its service ceiling is pure bunk.
A Su-25, flying at its mission ceiling of 16,000 feet (which would require the pilot to be on oxygen, which would be available), targeting a 777 at 33,000 feet, would be about 3.5 miles away, vertically, from the airliner. That's well within the range of the R-60 Molniya/Vympel, aka the AA-8 Aphid. However, it would require the pilot to point the aircraft directly upward at the airliner, which would very likely cause the Su-25 to stall before the pilot could get a good lock-on.
The maximum targeting range of the AA-8 is believed to be 5 miles; it can fly 6 miles after launch, but keep in mind the missile has to get to where the target aircraft was when launched, then cover the additional distance the aircraft has covered in that time (the missile would also have to climb 3 miles against gravity and would get none of that energy back "falling" toward the target as many air-to-air missiles do). Given the 3.2 mile vertical separation, the minimum angle the Su-25 pilot would be required to maintain assuming a "boresight" lock-on is required (the aircraft's nose has to point right at the target) is $\sin^{-1} \dfrac{3.2}{5} = 40^o$, and so the 777 could be no further in any horizontal direction from the Su-25 than $\cos (40) * 5 = 3.8$ miles. Some sources claim the R-60 can lock on at up to 45 degrees off-boresight, which would mean the Su-25, if it got a clean "uncaged" IR lock on the 777, could fire from level flight.
So, in theory, a Su-25, at its service ceiling and closer than 3 miles horizontally from MH-17, could have shot it down. However, there are no reports from civilian or military sources that an Su-25 was anywhere near that close to MH-17, and make no mistake, a Su-25 flying at 16,000 feet would be highly visible on any radar system for a hundred miles in any direction; the Frogfoot has exactly zero radar stealth features.
The German/American intelligence reports on the incident, stating that Russian-allied rebels in the Donetsk Oblast area used an SA-11 Gadfly launcher to bring it down, are more consistent with reality. This self-propelled SAM system is perfectly capable of reaching 33,000 feet (its vertical range is over 80,000 feet; it was designed with the CIA's U-2 Dragon Lady in mind) and can target an aircraft up to 20 miles away at that altitude. In addition, a Ukranian An-26 operating in the area was shot down by a similar launcher, according to the same rebel militia's own statements.
Why anyone would have targeted the civilian airliner is not known. There are several theories:

The separatists may have mistaken MH17 for another Ukrainian transport plane; a UAF An-26 light transport was shot down in the same area by an SA-11 just three days prior to MH17.
The Ukrainians might have fired on the plane, believing it to be "Board One", Putin's personal VIP transport which would have been on its way back from Brazil around that time, and which has reportedly used routes overflying Ukraine before. The Russians state the president's Il-96 was nowhere near Ukraine at the time and there were no plans to overfly the airspace during the trip to Brazil. At any rate, the Ukranians of course deny targeting any civil transport, Russian or otherwise.
The separatists may have believed it to be the same plane and fired on it, thinking that an assassination, pinned on the Ukrainians, would spark a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine thus accomplishing their goals.
The separatists may have intended to implicate Ukraine in the downing of a civilian airliner, weakening international support of the Ukrainian government.
The separatists may have deliberately targeted the civilian airliner as a message to keep civilian air traffic away from Ukraine. If they're in possession of more SAMs (highly likely; even the one launcher would have had 3 on the rails and been accompanied by a supply truck with more), ensuring no civilians are in the area means any aircraft in sight from then on is Ukrainian.

Thanks for your answer, but why are you answering this when a similarly good answer has been accepted over a year ago?

One other note to add to this... if you read the very thorough Dutch investigation, you find that MH17 was brought down by a fragmenting warhead exploding near the aircraft cockpit. The fragment pattern found on the cockpit skin wreckage is consistent with a missile approaching from the front, at an upward angle.
That is clearly a radar guided missile, approaching from the front. If this had been a heat seeking missile, it would have struck or exploded near one of the engines. The cockpit of a 777 doesn't emit any heat, while the engines definitely emit heat.
Since the SU25 doesn't carry radar guided missiles, just heat seekers, this is another reason that a SU25 would not have been able to produce the damage that was found on the wreckage. Nor does the SU25 carry a radar transmitter compatible with radar guided missiles, so even if a radar guided missile could be mounted, it would not have a radar source to illuminate the target.
Finally, the Dutch investigation also found warhead fragments consistent with a Buk antiaircraft missile, large interlocking fragments, some with a bow tie shape, instead of the smaller rodlike fragments that most heat seekers use.

thats not the question here. the question is, could the su-25 fly high enough. also, nobody here seems to address the engine variants. some su-25s have more powerful engines with afterburners. does ukraine possess any su-25s with newer engines? how high can you get with 0 payload, and say 20% fuel with those engines? looks like people are too eager here to dismiss conspiracy theorists than give a good answer.


text:
Why did Japanese aircraft carriers in WW2 carry both high and normal octane aviation fuels?
According to Parshall & Tully's Shattered Sword, the four Japanese aircraft carriers lost at the Battle of Midway (1942) carried both high and normal octane aviation fuel. Does anyone here know why?
Logistics would suggest that it's best to carry as few types of fuel as possible.

Well, the war was largely about access to oil, so high octane fuel was likely in short supply-- perhaps some aircraft had engines that could use lower octane w/ minimal degradation in performance -- or perhaps lower octane fuel was carried aboard the carrier as a "reserve" in case the higher-octane fuel was exhausted -- read more about the development of various grades of aviation gasoline here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline

(Begging the question, did some of the carrier aircraft carry  two different types of fuel simultaneously -- )

@quietflyer an engine can't run on lower octane fuel than designed for, and it won't get any benefit from running on higher octane fuel then designed for, so there is no reason to switch fuels in flight.

The logical answer is that there were aircraft that required both low octane fuel and high octane fuel on board.  You don't want to use high octane fuel in a low octane engine (unless you're forced to; the low octane engine can't scavenge the excess lead in the high octane fuel and it fouls plugs among other things) and vice versa (the high octane engine blows up from detonation if using low octane fuel).  Either there were Japanese patrol or utility aircraft on board used a lower octane fuel than the fighters and torpedo bombers, or the ships had gasoline powered engines aboard used for other things like standby power and required a separate lower octane fuel supply.

They had three main types. The Zero, Val, and Kate, plus Soryu carried a pair of Judy prototypes.

But according to Wikipedia at any rate they all used 92 octane engines.  I suspect there there was just avgas and automotive type gas for stationary motors or towing equipment.


text:
How does the X-59 achieve low-noise supersonic flight?
By what mechanism or combination of mechanisms does the X-59 reduce the noise produced by its sonic boom?  What are the design choices that led to this outcome? I really want to understand the issue from an aerodynamic perspective as well as a design perspective.

Source: nasa.gov

it would be helpful to have a picture in the question so we can see the details of what you are talking about.

This plane does not exist (yet).

As of the date of this answer, the X-59 has not yet flown, but according to the designers...

The ground noise is expected to be around 60 dB(A), about 1/1000 as
loud as current supersonic aircraft. This is achieved by using a long,
narrow airframe and canards to keep the shock waves from coalescing.
It should create a 75 Perceived Level decibel (PLdB) thump on ground,
as loud as closing a car door, compared with 105-110 PLdB for the
Concorde. The central engine has a top-mounted intake for low boom,
but inlet flow distortion due to vortices is a concern.

Source: Wikipedia
Additional information on this NASA project is available here.


text:
How does security and baggage checking work in regards to a private jet?
I was told recently that if you are flying on your own private jet, you can drive your car directly on to the runway, park next to your plane and board without any security checks.
This can't be true can it?
I don't own my own private jet so I'm afraid I can't check for myself.
How does security work around privately owned planes landing in public airports?

It's worth noting that airport security (as handled by the TSA in the US) is not the same as border control which is also not necessarily the same as customs control.

Why would you search a pilot flying in their own plane? They already have control of the plane. They have no need to hijack it. The same goes for commercial airline pilots, for that matter. It seems rather silly to search the guys who already have full control of the plane anyway.

@reirab not silly at all. The pilot's intention might not always be suicide. He could easily have a kilo of cocaine in his baggage or strapped to his body. Or some other stolen or illegal items. And he may only be travelling from one side of his country to the other, so technically it wouldn't be smuggling, but it would still be a very fast way of moving contraband.

@Daft I can't speak for all countries, but searching for drugs without probable cause is illegal in the U.S. Also, a private jet would be a seemingly inefficient way to move drugs within a country, since you'd have to move a lot of drugs to pay for the aircraft. Furthermore, we have really good road systems in the U.S. It's pretty easy to move contraband (as well as legal shipments) by road without attracting much suspicion at all and it's certainly much cheaper than using a private jet (or even a light GA piston-engine aircraft.)

@reirab "Or some other stolen or illegal items" a diamond worth £/$/€100,000,000 for example, is that expensive enough to cover the flight?

@Daft It would be, but, again, probable cause is necessary to perform a search. In passenger airports, security of the aircraft is at least ostensibly the purpose for the searches, not finding stolen or otherwise contraband items. However, due to the 'plain view doctrine,' if they find something otherwise illegal while performing an otherwise legal search, it is actionable, which is how such things would get reported from a normal airport search. In the case of GA, the security reason is moot, so there is no legitimate reason for them to search your luggage, making any evidence inadmissible.

Of course if they have probable cause to believe you're carrying contraband, then they can search you, but that's true regardless of whether or not you're boarding an aircraft.

It would be interesting to see the legal aspect of international travel (taking for instance the case if two Frech pilots in the Dominican Republic on whose plane drug was found in luggage and they are apparently responsible for that (they say that they are not))

@reirab You might be surprised at how little it takes for them to be able to search an airplane.  The Department of Homeland Security has far reaching authority, and they take advantage of that to search airplanes without disclosing any kind of probable cause.  It's something that is being fought, but they continue to do so to this day.

@Daft Don't serial downvote. It's a violation of SE policy and can get you banned. Apologies if it wasn't you, but the times seem to suggest it was.

@reirab That might be true for flights within the US, but it's important to note that if the flight is to/from another country, customs can make you submit to search as a matter of course (relevant for smuggling, though not domestic transport of contraband).

@cpast Very true, but that had already been covered in the answers, so I didn't mention it.

Why couldn't it be true?

Funny anecdote: Steve Jobs once tried to embark his own private jet with some shuriken on his way back from Japan. Airport security blocked him, and ha was forced to throw them away before boarding. Apparently he complained a lot about the stupidity of being denied boarding in his own plane and promised never to get back to Japan.

In the United States, official security only applies to large commercial flights. Charter flights or private aircraft use entrances that usually do not have security. It is the responsibility of the pilot to make sure nothing is taken aboard that the pilot does not want onboard the aircraft.

@reirab Pilots are security checked for two reasons: they cant bring anything prohibited to controlled area, to bring onboard or to give away to anybody else. And secondly so that they cannot be blackmailed to carry prohibited items past security control

Here in the US (you didn't specify where, and this is different in other countries), traveling domestically in your own private aircraft is much like traveling in your own private car.
Except in very specific situations, you are not generally required to go through security, and at many, many smaller general aviation airports airport security is almost non-existent, or at the very least they are not checking passengers and their luggage.
If the police have a reason to suspect that something illegal is taking place (they have reasonable cause) then they can search the airplane, but again, much like in your car, this doesn't usually happen.
International flights are a very different matter though, and the airplane, crew, passengers, and luggage must all clear customs at departure and arrival airports where they will be inspected.

It very much sounds as if smuggling drugs, weapons, etc would be fairly easy with a private jet! I suppose I was naively expecting security to be just as thorough as a commercial flight

@Daft: The word smuggling refers to illicit transport of goods over an international border. If you land in another country in a private jet (at an airport), you will have to clear customs (and immigration).

And this is exactly why I have vowed to own my own plane someday.

Cheers @GregHewgill, I was about to amend my question to ask about that very thing!

You'd be surprised how much weed is smoked on private jets

@rbp: I bet I wouldn't.

@Daft Just as easy as carrying those things in a private car.

The reason the TSA searches baggage going onto commercial flights is to prevent people from hijacking or destroying commercial airliners1.
If you are going on your own private plane, you can bring scissors or just about anything you like on your own plane, since you're already the pilot and if you want to fly it to Cuba or crash it into Monsanto headquarters, a baggage search won't stop you.

1 Informally, other reasons are also to milk money and perpetuate perverse political ideas and acceptance of pervasive security.)

This seems terrifying to mention, but hopefully terrorists are too poor to be buying their own private jets then!

I think if/when they have that much money on hand, they probably spend it more efficiently and locally. Somehow we've been sold the idea that we need to try to protect ourselves from a world of terrorists by adding lots of domestic security, as if this is effective and needed. Meanwhile there will always be all sorts of things a creative suicidal person could do, and even the supposedly secure places such as airports are frequently penetrated by curious reporters (or Mythbusters accidentally taking giant razors through security).

In the US this is (sort-of) true: For private aviation the responsibility for security of the flight falls on the operator of the flight, which usually means the crew is handling any "screening" of passengers.
Typically if you're flying on a private aircraft you're a known quantity: Executives flying around in GM's jets are going to be GM employees (or their guests), folks flying around on a sports team's jet will probably be the players and coaches, etc.
In both of those cases chances are the passengers have met the pilots before, and neither they nor their guests are likely to try to hijack the flight so there's no need for TSA-style searches and confiscation of the bottle of 30-year-old Glenlivet they brought to share on the flight.
Similarly for charter flights the folks renting the plane will have spoken to the company extensively in arranging the flight. There may be some additional level of scrutiny here to make sure someone's not bringing a propane camp stove or something else prohibited on board, but chances are you will not be asked to remove your shoes and belt.

The level of security for the airport itself will vary depending on the airport (and this is what usually determines if you can drive right up to the aircraft).
Let's consider three examples (for the sake of a prison metaphor we'll call them maximum security, medium security, and minimum security):
A maximum security airport would be the "big" airports (like JFK or O'Hare) - At these airports chances are you will not be driving your car or limo onto the ramp to board your plane. You will park (or be dropped off) "landside" (outside the airport fence / operations area), and authorized persons will take your bags and escort you to and from the aircraft.
When not on the way to or from the aircraft you'll be in a nice terminal building (like this one)
The medium security airports are typically the larger general aviation fields and/or the smaller commercial/airline fields. If your aircraft is based at one of these airports you will typically have reasonably unfettered access to it (subject to a few restrictions, such as the need for a background check and ID badge). You will usually be able to drive out onto the ramp and go directly into the aircraft.
If you're not based at the field (for example on the return leg of a business trip) you may be allowed to drive out on the ramp with an escort from someone at the airport who is authorized to do so, but visiting crew and passengers will be under some level of supervision from airport personnel (either directly escorted or visual observation).
Minimum security airports are more associated with light general aviation than business jets, though you'll find private jets based at some of these fields.
Security is generally much more relaxed at these airports, and at most of them you simply sign in and drive through a gate right onto the ramp.
Good common sense says passengers will usually be escorted by some qualified personnel at these fields (after all you don't want them walking into a propeller or getting sucked into a jet intake), but the supervision is probably going to be provided by your flight crew rather than airport personnel.

I have driven on the ramp, and had passengers drive on the ramp at many airports that have major airline service....

@Lnafziger restrictions on ramp access are definitely not a universal thing and some airline airports are in the medium-security bucket. Last I checked you still couldn't drive onto the ramp at JFK (though they might allow that at certain paranoia…er threat levels now?) but I know you can at ISP which has major airline service - at least if you call a couple of Southwest flights a day "major"…

Yeah, I was just referring to your statement that "A maximum security airport would be the kind of place major airlines fly from..." which makes it sound like all airports that major airlines fly from fall into this category.  You may want to clarify that.

Another minor point: GM no longer has their own private jets because of the bad PR that was generated when they flew them to Washington to ask for a bail out....

@Lnafziger Yeah, I remember that. What was perhaps even more ridiculous was that for their next trip they all drove cars from Detroit to D.C. If you consider what the CEOs of a company the size of Ford or GM make, the extra 2 days to drive there and back probably cost the company more than the private jet flights. This is, of course, why we have these cool things called 'airlines.'

@reirab Well, they knew that but it was a publicity stunt for the press/voters, lol.

@Lnafziger Yeah I just like picking on GM (and they can still sign a long-term contract with a charter operator and have the same kind of relationship :)

Oh yeah, they are still flying.  Just not with their own corporate airplanes.  :)

I worked at a general aviation airport for 10 years. At that one, security consisted of three strands of barbed wire around the perimeter and a chain across the gate. The priority was keeping cows off the runway. The police (and fire) were 30 minutes away, and that's assuming the payphone works.
The paved runway could handle any propeller plane and light jets like a Citation or smaller Gulfstream. You could load them up with absolutely anything and anyone you wanted, and nobody would know about it.
Larger airports in the area did have manned security, although their concern was theft and vandalism rather than contraband.

Depending on the airport you will be checked when entering the airfield itself.
There will be guards at the gate that will do a quick check on your vehicle baggage and person and provide a quick safety brief (as in "don't drive outside designated areas, planes have right of way").
Everyone entering the safe area of an international airport will be checked, even employees.
However small private airfields won't have such checks depending on who owns it.

So is it fair to say drugs and weapons and such could easily be smuggled through private airports?

(I'm not looking to smuggle drugs and weapons and such)

@Daft For drug and weapon smuggling, it'd be easier to just land in a field far from everywhere else than to have an established location. And just because there aren't routine checks, doesn't prevent police from getting a warrant to investigate the airfield.

@Daft (Also not a drug smuggler) but there are many class E and G airports that are very remote, and people don't care about.  Not to mention, it is legal to land airplanes on flat ground (anywhere) as long as it's not a populated area.

"Planes have right of way" the thought of someone driving a car and deciding to not yield to a plane is terrifying

@raptortech97 I can only fathom that maybe they mean commercial planes have the right of way vs private jets... though some things that seem like common sense really DO need to be repeated because some people are just that stupid/dense.

@DoktorJ no I meant that planes have right of way over cars.

@raptortech97 A Toyota Camry weighs half again what a Cessna 172 weighs. It's not that someone would ignore a 747 bearing down on them, but that many GA planes are comparable in scale to a car or truck (aside from wingspan). That means it's important to clarify right of way.

On our test track, trains have right of way over cars. You can't even imagine how many people ignore that rule. And trains are much heavier and harder to stop than airliners

As the owner of a 737 VIP I can tell you this much: if security is required it is the plane owner who pays and the PIC who coordinates it.
Most smaller GA fields that have a runway long enough for a 737 do not require a security check and most often you can be dropped off at your plane on the taxiway. Big airports like LAX, JFK, O'Hara, etc each have a protocol that must be followed. If your flight plan starts and stops with in the US, most times no security is required unless the airport you are visiting requires it.
The big airports do not allow private jetliners to be left unsecured. You must provide armed security for the plane the entire time it is on the ground at the airport. I use Security Boston, they are the best. American Airlines, Southwest, Delta, etc all have there own armed security forces to watch their planes on the ground.
You do not have to go through TSA to board your plane and leave for destinations within the US. If you are traveling internationally, this is for big jets, I do not know what the requirements are for GA aircraft, your plane, your crew, your passengers and baggage must go through a TSA screening. Period. When you land at your international destination, everybody must go through that country's security and customs to be cleared. Every country has its procedures for a private jet, and yes, some are just annoying.
Anything needed is the joint responsibility between the owner and pilot.
Hope this helps.